Discussing the most relevant "sequels" or "reminders" of 9/11. The so-called "War On Terror" is a global scam finalized to manipulate this world's population with crass fear-mongering tactics designed to scare you shitless.

“When I first got to the venue and walked in, I walked past the dude who was supposed to be the security guard for the backstage,” he said. “He didn’t even look at me. I immediately went to the promoter and said, ‘Who’s that guy? I want to put another dude on.’

“Right before we walked onstage, there were two dudes in shorts and trench coats, were standing, without talking, heads down in the corner,

Right at the start I know he's telling a story - "when I first got to the venue". It immediately makes me wonder what is the 'second' thing he did? Did he get to the venue twice or does he have a "second" part of his story to tell? The 'second' part of his story is the trench coat mafia (Columbine) reference he has to make, so he's telegraphed that right from the start.

He also says "and walked in". Why the emphasis on walking in, walking past and walking on stage? It is taken as read that when someone arrives somewhere they are usually walking inside unless they are disabled or are being carried. I also take it as read that when someone goes on stage they have used their legs to do so. Adding it in is unnecessary and is an indication of a fabricated story. It is an effort to convince. Why not simply say "When I got there I saw?" etc. The shortest sentence is the best sentence if you are telling the truth. There is no need for extraneous detail.

He then switches from "dude" to "guy" and back again. What is the difference in his mind between dude and guy? The switching indicates that the 'guy' or 'dude' didn't actually exist. The word 'dude' is also not one that I would readily associate with a security guard. For me to believe that Hughes is telling the truth I would only do so if he said "man".

1883, "fastidious man," New York City slang of unknown origin; recent research suggests it is a shortening of Yankee Doodle, based on the song's notion of "foppish, over-fastidious male" (compare macaroni). The vogue word of 1883, originally used in reference to the devotees of the "aesthetic" craze, later applied to city slickers, especially Easterners vacationing in the West (as in dude ranch, first recorded 1921).

So the security guard was a "fastidious man", "foppish, over-fastidious male", a "city slicker"? Because that is what Hughes is implying. This also applies to the two males wearing shorts in November.

The words we choose aren't arbitrary. They are part of our internal dictionary. Unless Hughes calls every male he ever meets a "dude" I could understand his use of it, but he doesn't. He also uses the word "guy" indicating that in his internal dictionary 'dude' is not the same as 'guy' (which is also a buddy term).

If the above quotation is verbatim then he also fails to speak correct English - "there were two dudes in shorts and trench coats, were standing" makes no sense and is possibly a typo.

Due to multiple deception markers in Hughes' account I do not believe a word of what he is saying.

There are a lot of videos and stills at the link; it's all such overkill and unreal. Civilians just lolly gagging down the street while four cops back up single file behind a shield to cross the same street.

One of the comments:Adam Sahr: Europeans and the French in particular need to understand that the purpose of staging these fake events is to strip them of their right and liberties. The damage it does to the Muslims is secondary but a welcome cherry on the cake.﻿

I haven't been able to find this interview anywhere else. I guess it was so bad they decided to scrub it altogether. This couple really doesn't have their act together. Their story is just so full of inconsistencies and absurdities, including the oh-too-common "we just spent 10 minutes lying in a pool of blood but we don't have any of it on us." The guy who does the takedown doubts that they are really a couple, because he looks a lot younger than she does, but from what I have been able to find they are a real couple. He's a music producer. I forget what she does. IIRC, something related to theater productions, as you'd imagine.

On the 26 of march, an event called "Samedi qui sauve", literally "Saturday that rescues" (it's the best translation I can come up with), was held in Paris. Its purpose was to initiate people to first aid, such as depicted in this picture : N°1 : "Know your emergency numbers !" : 15 (for medical emergency), 18 (firemen), and 112 (european emergency number).N°2 : stopping a haemorrhage.N°3 : doing a cardiac massage.N°4 : Using an automated external defibrillator.

This initiation is, indeed, intended to give more credibility to the recent events. Patrick Pelloux, one of the first "rescuer" of the Charlie Hebdo scene , promoted this event : here and here, and he participated to the training. Basically, our favorite emergency practitioner of the moment says that we should learn the basic emergency cares so that we can handle with more efficiency the next shootings...

edit : as some of you might wonder, this event gathered a little less than 4000 people, the formation itself was taking 2 hours, and happened within the walls of the 20 district town halls.

I found this posted over at Fakeologist. It shows Salam Abdeslam's brother blowing himself up in one of the cafe's in Paris that fakeful day. The animation/CGI is awful - a thunderbolt shoots out of his rear end during detonation and then POOF he is gone. Nobody is injured (except in the claymation portion of the video recreating the events) not a window is broken or a table moved. A good connection is made between John Turturro, his character in Don't Mess With The Zohan and this terrorist named Abdeslam (rearranged Bad-Eslam?).

Maud Griezmann walked into the concert hall and looked around. It was a little before 9 p.m. on Nov. 13 at the Bataclan in Paris, and she admired the grand stage. She looked at the growing crowd. She watched, for a few moments, as a man at the souvenir stand sorted T-shirts and posters and CDs for the band Eagles of Death Metal, which was just about to begin its set....Then Ms. Griezmann looked quickly at her phone. Her brother Antoine Griezmann is a star forward for France’s national soccer team, and he was playing that night at the Stade de France,...She only knew that, about 40 minutes after Eagles of Death Metal began to play — mostly rock, not heavy metal despite the band’s name — a patter of loud pops could suddenly be heard over the music. It was not clear what has happening. “At first we thought it was a prank, a joke,” Ms. Griezmann said ...She and her boyfriend, Simon Degoul, were pushed toward the front right corner of the room, by the edge of the stage, as three terrorists stormed into the hall with assault rifles and grenades. Ms. Griezmann and Mr. Degoul, like so many people around them, dropped to the ground in an attempt to avoid the bullets. A woman fell between them....She pressed her face down, forcing herself to avoid looking at what was happening all around her. “If you moved, you were shot,” she said. “A person next to me moved, and they shot him. They just shot him, and I heard him land.”...She does not remember any distinguishing characteristics about the woman next to her. Blond or brunette, tall or short — nothing. She does not know her name or how old she was. She only remembers the woman’s hands. Ms. Griezmann held one of them; Mr. Degoul held the other. As the terrorists killed people on the mezzanine and in the concert pit below, Ms. Griezmann and Mr. Degoul and the woman buried their faces and shut their eyes and held their bodies as still as possible except for the tiniest movements of the hands they clasped. The movements traveled in a chain. Ms. Griezmann would begin with a squeeze to one hand, and the woman would pass the squeeze up the line to Mr. Degoul before he would send it back down toward Ms. Griezmann. They did this — squeeze after squeeze after squeeze — for 90 minutes. They did it in fear of what it would mean if the message they were sending each other stopped.

“It was the only way we could tell each other we were still alive,” Ms. Griezmann said.

The 14-hour testimony about the November attacks took place March 21st.

According to this testimony, Wahhabist killers reportedly gouged out eyes, castrated victims, and shoved their testicles in their mouths. They may also have disemboweled some poor souls. Women were reportedly stabbed in the genitals – and the torture was, victims told police, filmed for Daesh or Islamic State propaganda. For that reason, medics did not release the bodies of torture victims to the families, investigators said.

And who are those lucky souls who lived to tell police who the torture was being filmed for?

The best quote in the story:

A prosecutor appearing before the inquiry replied lamely that no sharp knife had been found at the scene that could have been used for torture. Perhaps shrapnel had caused the mutilation, he said. The head of the committee asked if an explosion would have placed testicles in a victim’s mouth?!

the merry joys and wonder of being maimed in grisly terrorist attacks ?comparing media portrayal of pre-911 terrorism victims with contemporary accounts of terror events

A. examining the evolution of mass murder media portrayal

There is a whole series of documentaries lately produced in France purporting to follow up on the experiences and healing process of the wounded victims and witnesses of the 13 November 2015 Paris terror attacks (137 dead, 368 wounded).

I recently watched several online video documentaries purporting to present gripping testimonies of witnesses and victims of attacks/massacres that occurred in the pre-911 era (the 1944 Oradour-sur-Glane and Tulle killings in France, the 1944 Ardeatine massacre in Rome, up to the 1995 bomb attack in the St Michel metro in Paris) - I am aghast at the calm poignancy and pathos I felt listening to these ancient testimonies in contrast to media portrayals of more recent mass murder events.

This contrast appears particularly disquieting when compared with media coverage of two of these 2015 Paris attack documentaries aired in 2016 :

(1) one is from the investigative series Envoyé spécial and is titled Réparer les vivants : sept mois après (Healing the living : seven months later) - it was aired on French public TV station France 2 on 23 June 2016. [in French, 53 minutes]

(2) another is from cable TV station L’Équipe titled Alice et Aristide, aired on 14 November 2016 - it is described as « a moving documentary on a brother and sister, survivors of a nightmare that has given them the incredible courage to face the vicissitudes of life. » [in French, 57 minutes]

Nowhere in the pre-911 documentaries listed above does a victim/witness state he is stronger from his experience. On the contrary, interviewees expressed a deep-seated feeling of inner fracture and of « not being the same person » (several victims from the 1995 Paris metro attack state : « I am not the same person as I was before the attack » while a victim from one of the 13 November attacks insists he « is still the same person [he] was before the attack. »). In the 2016 documentaries, most, if not all, of the victims express feelings of joy or happiness.

This is furthermore surprising since Western individuals have suffered a general increase in feelings of isolation and social disconnection through the fracturing of communities, diminishing social loyalties, and increased geographic mobility over the past century ; the impact of terrorist attack ought thus to increase the feeling of trauma in contemporary terror attack victims who lack the same support structures their elders could count on.

Another observation is the impression of a deep-felt need for justice and closure on the part of the victims from the pre-911 interviews : to understand why the attack happened and to confront their attacker as well as to identify the individual(s) who organized and planned the attack, thus insisting on the necessary and crucial role of the judiciary process in healing wounds both physical and psychological.

Nowhere in the 2016 documentaries does a victim/witness share his concern about the importance of this fundamental component in helping to heal the psychological trauma caused by terrorism, as is emphasized in the pre-911 interviews.

Rather, contemporary media portrayal of terror attack victims/witnesses is focused on the development of public memory politics (commemorations) and on victims effort to obtain State compensation funds, with the creation in France of several victims’ association organized solely around this goal (such as the 13 November 2015 victims’ associations 13 Novembre : Fraternité et Vérité - created on 9 January 2016 - and 13 novembre : Life for Paris - created on 13 January 2016 or the 14 July 2016 Nice victims’ association Promenade des Anges - created on 11 August 2016, less than a month after the terrorist attack) while pursuit of justice or transparency is presented as secondary or contingent.

It remains to be further explored if the resulting contrast in regard to the evolution of media testimony is a result of film production choices focused on increasing viewer pathos, of the natural evolution of social norms and values towards diminished empathy, or perhaps is evidence of more sinister forms of media viewer manipulation.

Thank you so much for this post, CitronBleu. I love your observations and share your incredulity as the veil falls before my eyes and I "see" how fake and badly put together all of this is. This is definitely the kind of research I'd pursue "between attacks", if I had more time.

I share nonhocapito's thoughts and feelings - and commend you for your composed 'philosophical posture' in exposing, in thoughtful and contained fashion, the brute idiocy of these ongoing "terror" operations.

It really feels good to me that this forum can offer the sort of insightful / no-nonsense considerations as can be read in your above post.

As a former, avid reader (in my clueless, naive youth) of the imbecilic "news" material churned out by the mainstream media outlets, I must say that I now happily feel to have amply made up for it (i.e. my youthful cluelessness) - in providing this forum platform for all sane people to diagnose - and hopefully CURE! - the sickness of this foolish world we live in.

One question I have is if these 'attacks' made all these people stronger, smarter and happier people.. then why do they need state compensation?

To add to that question, I don't know why there would be state compensation in the first place. Bad things happen to people in life, like car crashes and even violent attacks like assault on people. Victims of incidents such as violent assault do not get special state compensation. What happens to those assault victims is if they can no longer work, they have to apply for social assistance programs, just as anyone else who finds themselves unable to earn enough money to live.